Q: A considerable portion of Tibetan territory has been redistributed to neighbouring Chinese
provinces. What do you think the borders of the future autonomous Tibet should be?

A: In the seventh century, the border between Tibet and China was drawn up very clearly. The
Chinese government has tried to use all sorts of historical arguments with references to the
thirteenth century and the seventh century.... Given the fact that I accepted the first condition
set down by Mr. Deng Xiaoping, I feel I have every right to discuss the rest of the issue. So I
told them that since the Chinese government itself recognizes the existence of all sorts of
regions, districts, zones, and even counties which the government itself calls ethnic Tibetan
zones, counties, and districts, why not regroup them all together as one single entity? This
would make it much simpler and much easier to preserve and protect Tibetan culture and
identity. Already in the eighth century, during the reign of King Trisong Detsen and King Tri
Ralpachen, the border between China and Tibet had been clearly demarcated from the Chinese
province of Yunnan to the Tibetan province of Amdo, in the north. There are inscriptions, some
of them on pillars, others on rocks. In Yunnan province, for example, there are rock carvings.
These ancient inscriptions indicate the true border between China and Tibet, and this is not
something we have made up, but historical reality.

All authoritarian regimes in general, and Communist regimes in particular, have an unfortunate
tendency to distort history by rewriting it. I saw this very clearly when I went to China in 1954
and 1955. I spent roughly six months in China proper, then I visited Manchuria, which the
Chinese call Tumbe, and also the regions of Hreang and Heilongjang. There I saw a museum
of Japanese atrocities, where it was explained that the Japanese only surrendered once the
Soviet army had destroyed the Japanese army division in Manchuria, the Quangtuong army. I
was in Lhasa at that time, and there we learned what had really happened--in fact, the Japanese
surrendered only after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Russia declared war
on Japan after the bombs were dropped. The Chinese version claims that the Japanese
surrendered only after the Russians had annihilated the most powerful Japanese army in
Manchuria. This is an example of the distortion of history.

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and
Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral
principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned
with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of
production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as
well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the
victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it
seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed
out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or
China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned
with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were
conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those
three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have
occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the
need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and
to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the
majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities.
Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the
people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the
initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and
compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to
the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but
the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

Q: You have called for the repatriation of the Chinese who now line in Tibet. Might there be a place for a Chinese population in a democratic, open Tibet?

A: I think we should differentiate the various groups of Chinese living in Tibet. There are, on the
one hand, those who were already there in 1949; then all those who went there or were sent in
compliance with official plans; and, finally, those who have been coming since the so-called
"liberal economic policy," and who come on their own initiative, as individuals. We should also
distinguish the Chinese who speak Tibetan and respect Tibetan culture--for, after all, Buddhist
culture is not so foreign to them--from all those who come to Tibet merely in search of material
wealth and not spiritual wealth. Those who respect Tibetan spirituality could prove themselves
to be very beneficial if they stay. If there are not too many of them I see no reason why we could
not work it out so that they can remain in Tibet. But as for all those who think that Tibetans are
backward and barbarian, that they are dirty and smell bad (we think in turn that the Chinese
smell bad, that they eat too much garlic), it would be better if they went home. Why should they
stay in a place if they think it is dirty?

Q: Your Holiness, in your struggle to liberate Tibet, do you absolutely refuse the use of violence, or is nonviolence for you simply the best way to attain your goal?

A: Yes, I absolutely refuse the use of violence. For several years now I have been asked on several
occasions what I would do if the despair of certain Tibetans drove them to violence, and I have
always replied that if that were to happen I would give up and step back. I have reasons for
thinking in this way; it is not merely a blind belief First of all, I believe that the basic nature of
human beings is gentle and compassionate. It is therefore in our own interest to encourage that
nature, to make it live within us, to leave room for it to develop. If on the contrary we use
violence, it is as if we voluntarily obstruct the positive side of human nature and prevent its
evolution.

The First World War ended with the defeat of Germany, and this defeat left a deep trauma in
the German people. That is how the seeds of the Second World War were sown. Once violence
gains the upper hand in a situation, emotions can no longer be controlled. This is dangerous and
leads to tragedy. This is exactly what is happening in Bosnia at the moment. Violent methods
merely create new problems.

In our case, what is most important is the fact that we Tibetans and our Chinese brothers and
sisters have always been neighbours and must remain so. The only alternative for the future is
to learn to get along and live in harmony with our neighbours. We must seek a solution between
the Chinese and the Tibetans that will offer mutual benefits. Because of our nonviolent attitude,
Chinese people both within China and abroad have already expressed sympathy and concern
for our cause; some have even said they greatly appreciate our nonviolent attitude.

The material on this page has been collected from
the recent book, "Beyond Dogma: The Challenge of the Modern World", (c) 1996 North Atlantic Books, translated
by Alison Anderson and Marianne Dresser from talks given
during His Holiness's visit to France end 1993.
E-MAIL: All enquiries, comments and
suggestions welcome.